Details slider is a strange one, never really got to grips with it. I have tried many combinations, but nothing seems to really help aka NR wise. If anyone has any tips, feel free to fire away.

Not pre sharpening in LR appears to not be an option, this is a 100% crop

No sharpening in LR, high pass sharpen and USM too at 70 odd radius 2

<snip>

This is pre sharpened standard landscape sharpen preset, plus high pass in psp.

<snip>

And for a laugh I added the arcsoft one, no sharpen in program, USM only. I can get a little better with pre sharpening in the program, though it holds up no worries to ACR/LR

<snip>

Pretty much says to me must use sharpen in LR![a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=145432\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]

Barry, Well, you can see a clear difference, although it may be harder to determine on what appears to be a center crop of a wider angle image. I understand if is there, it will affect other images. I am more concerned though with portrait type shots, tighter if you will, where a crop really brings out facial detail (or lack of it), or that the effect of the "watercolor" is really evident perhaps. Will look for a good example and try and post results.

Barry, the best way to see what the Detail slider is doing is to hold down the Alt Key when moving it (Option key on Mac).The further right it is, the more the high frequency detail will be sharpened.[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=146011\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]

Sean, I'll let Barry answer for himself, but personally I'm well aware of holding down the Option or Alt key and see the detail that will be sharped and masking (incredibly useful) confines the sharpening to the edges, for example.. The issue is the possible impact of the detail slider and noise reduction at high ISOs and the result to the image. Some call is smearing, some calling a watercolor effect, etc. Not sure what equipment you have, but what settings are you using (in general) for high ISO RAW processing?

I am aware of the alt key and the grey effect for sharpening (for some reason it makes the slider very sloppy though)

As a rule I sharpen somewhat more conservative than most, I have tended to go easy on the detail slider being honest. I always have luminance NR set to 0, only ever go after the colour noise.

By no means am I unhappy with LR, overall, its a fantastic piece of software, easy to use, and fast for a large no. of images. A few areas that need ironing out a tad, like most people feel.

C1 4, cannot really comment that much on, only really used it to illustrate the difference between the high ISO NR. Overall its much more appealing than the previous version, not sure about netframework though, makes for a slow startup.

I am aware of the alt key and the grey effect for sharpening (for some reason it makes the slider very sloppy though)

As a rule I sharpen somewhat more conservative than most, I have tended to go easy on the detail slider being honest. I always have luminance NR set to 0, only ever go after the colour noise.

By no means am I unhappy with LR, overall, its a fantastic piece of software, easy to use, and fast for a large no. of images. A few areas that need ironing out a tad, like most people feel.

C1 4, cannot really comment that much on, only really used it to illustrate the difference between the high ISO NR. Overall its much more appealing than the previous version, not sure about netframework though, makes for a slow startup.[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=146405\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]

Barry, I agree about LR.. I like the workflow, like the visual representation of components of the Develop module, closeness to CS3, etc. I, in fact, have very little issues with noise on the lower ISOs (which kinda just plain makes sense) :-) ... Like you, I cannot find a good balance of sharpeneing, noise reduction, detail, etc. For the most part, I keep the detail at a minimum on high ISO, and use masking to keep any artifacting off faces, etc. Still bring results into CS3, use Noise Ninja, and USM...

I've said this many times - many programs out there, including Lightroom and SilkyPix render images with a watercolor digital effect, while C1 just gives you straight detail, that doesn't look digital at all.

I will never use Lightroom, and I can't imagine why some people with expensive Phase backs are using Lightroom instead of C1, simply because Lightroom's workflow is better.

I'll take image quality over workflow, especially if I just paid $30,000 for a digital back. Unbelievable.

I've said this many times - many programs out there, including Lightroom and SilkyPix render images with a watercolor digital effect, while C1 just gives you straight detail, that doesn't look digital at all.

I will never use Lightroom, and I can't imagine why some people with expensive Phase backs are using Lightroom instead of C1, simply because Lightroom's workflow is better.

I'll take image quality over workflow, especially if I just paid $30,000 for a digital back. Unbelievable.[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=146485\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]

I've said this many times - many programs out there, including Lightroom and SilkyPix render images with a watercolor digital effect, while C1 just gives you straight detail, that doesn't look digital at all.

I will never use Lightroom, and I can't imagine why some people with expensive Phase backs are using Lightroom instead of C1, simply because Lightroom's workflow is better.

I'll take image quality over workflow, especially if I just paid $30,000 for a digital back. Unbelievable.[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=146485\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]

T-1000, I like C1 Pro as well.. liked RSP when we had it. There are absolutely some features (camera profiles for one) that are very nice. That said, I've got the C1 beta on my Mac Book Pro, and at ISO 1600, it can get pretty ugly as well. At the defaults they supply, ISO 1600 with a Canon 20D looks just downright nasty. Getting to something acceptable on a high ISO image there is also a tradeoff. Turn up the noise reduction and some of the uglies go away, but then some of the softness comes back in. So, one way or another, we're back to Noise Ninja on the JPG, which may be just what has to be. I'll be more than glad to share a RAW file and would honestly like to see what you think are the best settings with C1...

I've said this many times - many programs out there, including Lightroom and SilkyPix render images with a watercolor digital effect, while C1 just gives you straight detail, that doesn't look digital at all.

I will never use Lightroom, and I can't imagine why some people with expensive Phase backs are using Lightroom instead of C1, simply because Lightroom's workflow is better.

I'll take image quality over workflow, especially if I just paid $30,000 for a digital back. Unbelievable.[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=146485\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]

O.K., Let the discussion begin :-) Same image.. zoom at 2:1 (200%) no correction except a white balance (both using the same temp and tint). All noise and sharpening turned to 0. Shot is ISO 1600 Canon 20D, image area is to the side and further back from center of focus. Shot at 35mm, F/4.5, 1/250th. Looking at the packages, C1 Pro V4 on the left, LR 1.2 on the right. To my eyes, the C1 image may seem "sharper", but I think it has more artifacting. If you look at the young ladies neck, I prefer the image under LR over the one under C1. This does not say there still isn't an issue when applying NR and Detail and Sharpening to the image with LR, but the discussion started comparing NR under both packages at their respective starting points. That said, an edge to C1 for white balance on auto.

After examining both images, my impression is that the C1 image has more luminance noise whereas the LR image has more chroma noise. (Obviously these can be balanced out via the appropriate noise reduction sliders.) Also, I see some artifacts near the corners of the woman's lips and at the end strands of the woman's hair in the LR image; this might have to do with the Detail slider for sharpening. What do you think?

After examining both images, my impression is that the C1 image has more luminance noise whereas the LR image has more chroma noise. (Obviously these can be balanced out via the appropriate noise reduction sliders.) Also, I see some artifacts near the corners of the woman's lips and at the end strands of the woman's hair in the LR image; this might have to do with the Detail slider for sharpening. What do you think?[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=147158\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]

Eric,

I've looked and looked at the two images. My next step was to plan on "adjusting" the image with both packages, and put up a similar post (I know, lots of room for personal judgment there). I agree with your assessment on noise. If we're "splitting hairs" (no pun intended) look at the part in her hair, and the small loop that appears near the bacl. I think the C1 version has more detail, but the LR version has more of the loop (go figure)...

Also, I intentionally went away from the focus point, and into an area where depth of field would have made the image "softer" to begin with. We're talking about loss of details here, and in my mind, if you are going to lose them, then that is where to look. I would hope both do reasonably well at the focus point. The C1 image looks a bit "harsher" (look at her eyebrows), but I"m not sure that is more detail...

The was no LR Detail applied as all sliders were set to zero (unless LR is doing some detail before presenting the image), and as I said, this doesn't show anything regarding what happens to the images after we start using the sliders. This was my attempt to just show how each package handles the image on import with nothing applied.

It is on higher ISOs, that we started seeing the effects of Sharpening vs. NR vs Detail, etc. under LR. If you want the original just let me know. You can download the C1 beta for free and try them side by side..

From a useability standpoint, LR (in my opinion) is a better tool, and I'm not even talking about Workflow. I've used C1, RSP, ACR, Canon's DPP, and others. I think that (once you get past the whole library thing) LR is a better experience. I just wish they would get this high ISO noise/sharpening thing correct and I'd be a happy camper!

I just want to say that in the example you have provided I see more contrast in Lightroom and a softer image in C1 4. The difference appears to be related more to contrast and sharpness than any difference in NR to my eye.

I just want to say that in the example you have provided I see more contrast in Lightroom and a softer image in C1 4. The difference appears to be related more to contrast and sharpness than any difference in NR to my eye.[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=147208\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]

Well being fair its no unusual to get a different look in various RAW processing software, by default.

I am still thinking that C1 4 is doing a better "cleaner/crisper" look. By no means am I out to rave out the software (for a beta its pretty decent) net framework makes for a slow startup too..leaving that aside.

Down to personal taste I guess, but I still want adobe to "not do any NR at all" unless I do it myself. I think the 30D sample shows this point also. I dont think I am alone in this thinking either.

Well being fair its no unusual to get a different look in various RAW processing software, by default.

I am still thinking that C1 4 is doing a better "cleaner/crisper" look. By no means am I out to rave out the software (for a beta its pretty decent) net framework makes for a slow startup too..leaving that aside.

Down to personal taste I guess, but I still want adobe to "not do any NR at all" unless I do it myself. I think the 30D sample shows this point also. I dont think I am alone in this thinking either.[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=147517\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]

Barry, I tried to get a good solid conversion on the ISO 1600 image I had above, and used the same levels of USM on the best I could get from both C1 and LR. When I got in real tight on the C1 Pro image (after converting to JPG), what I thought was detail, was actually some artifacting. I went back to the TIF file that came out of the C1 conversion and it was there as well. To me, neither is handling the higher ISO scenarios very well.. which is really starting to be frustrating. I went back and reviewed step by step the videos on the LR 1.1 noise reduction and sharpening videos and just cannot get a good balance without some level of watercolor effect. Very frustrating to not have a solid workflow. Next up, Canon's DPP just to see what it looks like.

Well I don't have Canon's software, so I will let you fire away on that one!

As for C1 and LR, sure on both you get artifacting (if you really pixel peep up close), it just looks tighter and finer overall, more grain like in effect.

Printed output appears that bit better (C1), you wont see anything nasty at small 6x4" sizes, up that a bit and you start to get the effect come through..(10"+ odd, barely visible on some 8" shots)

I notice in LR that the shadow or black areas are even harder hit that the rest of the image, aka it kidna blocks up a lot more.

You could argue I guess that for my needs (album shots are mostly 8"x6" on average), that it matters not a lot, and you would be right. Most of the bigger enlargements are with the lower ISO ones (aka outside etc, or flash)

On the other hand if you do want a grainy effect at high ISO for larger printing, or you are pulling up the shadows a lot on lower ISO shots, it could cause a few problems.

I have yet to find a balance I like in LR, its just applying "some" NR whatever you do. Odd thing to say, but I am getting some really nice jpegs out of LR!!! lol